Talk:Hogwarts Headmaster
Headmaster and security... I seem to remember on Pottermore, on the "Floo Powder" page, it said that successive headmasters and headmistresses of Hogwarts refused to have the school's fireplaces connected to the floo network because they did not want to running the risk of a breach of security in the castle. So regardless of whether or not the head of hogwarts is actually the one maintaining the protections around the school or not, (which in all fairness, it is absurd to think they don't, because otherwise, how would their exception to those protections come from? Given how magic in the HP books are depicted to function and all...), they do ''have a say in terms of, for a lack of better words, ''practical ''security. Maester Martin (talk) 01:40, November 4, 2018 (UTC) :Perhaps you should look at the source before quoting what it says? - "The fireplaces of Hogwarts are not generally connected, although there have been occasions when one or more has been tampered with, often without the staff’s knowledge." There is no mention of Headmasters at all. :You're probably thinking of - "A return to the unregulated travel of the past was impossible, and yet a more secure route into the school (for instance, permitting a fireplace that might be officially entered by Floo powder) was strongly resisted by successive Headmasters, who did not wish the security of the castle to be breached." :Of course Headmasters had a role in the security of the school, including casting some spells directly. But to say they must be responsible for casting and lifting all protective spells is over-extending the few examples given. A simple counter-example is why didn't the Death Eaters just apparate away from Hogwarts after Dumbledore was killed if all of Hogwart's protective spells were cast by him (and ceased to function after his death)? --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:08, November 4, 2018 (UTC) Yes, yes I was thinking of Hogwarts Express. To answer your question:The reason why the Death Eaters didn't just apparate away from Hogwarts after Dumbledore was killed should be rather obvious. Some spells cease to function after the caster is dead, like the Full-Body-Bind Curse, some don't, like for example a Permanent Sticking Charm. And for ''obvious ''reasons, it would be impractical to surround Hogwarts with spells that are lifted the second the caster passes, since it would leave the school defenseless, so it would necessarily ''have ''to be guarded by wards of defensive spellwork that would, once cast, stay in place for a lengthy period of time and that could be lifted and replaced by a sufficiently skilled witch or wizard if the need should arise. It is not unreasonable to say a headmaster or headmistress play an important role in maintaining the magical defences already in place, and maybe even adding some when new and more sophisticated charmswork is developed and would work better, but the whole "controlling" thing comes from Dumbledore's ability to disapparate and apparate in the sixth movie when nobody else can. It also has to do with how defensive spells is depicted to work in the movies. It isn't ''explicitly ''stated in the books, but hey, that's what we call subtext. When a defensive spell is cast, like the Shield Charm in a duel, do you ever see in the books that the enemy removes or undoes the spell? No, you don't, because when a defensive spell is cast, the ''caster can willy-nilly take it down, but other parties can most certainly not. They either have to break through it with their own spells, or wait for the caster to take it down as they switch from defensive to offensive. Maester Martin (talk) 03:23, November 4, 2018 (UTC) :Mis-attributing information doesn't do your argument any credit - I could have just pointed out that the article you mentioned does not say what you think it does; instead I provided the actual source, and yet you complain that is being condescending? The best way to avoid having a mistake pointed out to you is to double-check what you think you know before speaking. :Again, what you want to do is speculate that the Anti-apparition charm persists after the caster's death - maybe they do, maybe they don't. If they do, then perhaps those in place are left over from wizards from long ago ("the castle and grounds have always been protected with Anti-Apparition Charms") and maybe they fade away and have to be renewed (but by whom - the Board of Governors, the Headmaster, the best anti-apparition caster on staff, etc, etc, etc...) Again, we don't know anything about how this works, so to assume that the Headmaster must directly cast all the protective magic at Hogwarts, and then use this to extend to saying all Headmasters must therefore be gifted in the applicable areas of magic, is just layering on assumption after assumption. Again, without direct references to back it up, it's all just speculative guesswork which doesn't belong in the article. --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:51, November 4, 2018 (UTC) First off, it wasn't what you said, it was the way you said it, that triggered me. However, I changed my post for a reason - namely there's been a bit of tension between us lately, I was already on the defensive when I read your reply, and I realized almost immediately after posting it that calling you condescending were unreasonable. Hence, I changed it. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by surfing through the edit history to look up stuff I changed and then use it against me, though, given I removed it before you could even reply. That said, no, I don't "want" to speculate, nor am I speculating. If I didn't know any better, I'd say it almost looks like you somehow have this funny little idea that the word "speculation" can be used as a label that can be just stamped onto whatever I say whenever you don't want to discuss something and somehow ''is supposed to invalidate it, regardless of what it is I am trying to convery, and I'm sorry, but if such is the case, that's not how a reasoned discussion between two adults work. I am not, in fact, speculating that Anti-apparition charm persists after the caster's death, I am ''pointing out that the Anti-apparition charm persists after the caster's death, as clearly evidenced by the fact that the Death Eaters didn't just apparate away from Hogwarts after Dumbledore was killed. Also, please read your own sentence and tell ''me it don't sound completely, and utterly, ridiculous: Hogwarts is one of, if not the, best protected location in wizarding britain. Don't you see how the mere ''idea ''of a witch or wizard who is so magically ''inept ''that they have to ''rely ''on other people to guard the castle ''they ''are responsible for, in a position where ensuring the safety of the students is, by far, their most important duty, is in no shape and form reconcileable? No way, no how, would Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry have appointed to its operational overseight a headmaster or headmistress who were utterly unable to keep the students safe, as the position and school is presented in the universe created by J. K. Rowling. And of course, Dumbledore being Dumbledore could indeed very well have stood for the protections himself, but okay, let's say that the norm is that it is some kind of collaborated effort. So what? The decision of whether or not as much as a single defensive spell were to be lifted, if only temporarily, would ''still ultimately be the headmaster/headmistress' decision to make, to in a broader sense, it is ''still ''the headmaster/headmistress "controlling" the defences. For the record, I never said the headmaster/headmistress upheld the defences on their own, only that they were in control. Maester Martin (talk) 04:45, November 4, 2018 (UTC) :And the reference for Dumbledore casting the Anti-Apparition Charm on Hogwarts is found where? --Ironyak1 (talk) 05:46, November 4, 2018 (UTC) I would have asked what exactly would have prevented Dumbledore from casting the spell over the school, when he proved himself capable of casting it to prevet Death Eaters to escape the Department of Mysteries after the fight, but - yeah, reference: Book 6, when it is establishes Dumbledore have ''temporarily ''lifted the anti-apparation spell so they could have apparation lessons, which means that after/between said lessons, he would necessarily have to put it back in place so that the castle's security wouldn't be breached. Maester Martin (talk) 06:29, November 4, 2018 (UTC) :So the line from - “As you may know, it is usually impossible to Apparate or Disapparate within Hogwarts. The headmaster has lifted this enchantment, purely within the Great Hall, for one hour, so as to enable you to practice. May I emphasize that you will not be able to Apparate outside the walls of this Hall, and that you would be unwise to try." So Dumbledore temporarily lifted the spell for a limited time in a limited area which in no way compromised the school's security. The temporary exclusion may just expire on its own and need no new casting of the protection. Regardless, we don't know if this modification of the security is possible because he is the headmaster (and is a special right like access to the Headmaster's office) or because he is extraordinarily talented (and any possible previous Apparition lessons before his tenure were held elsewhere like Hogsmeade, similar to the later lessons in Harry's time). Again, to take this one example and try to extend it to a general principle that 1000 years of Headmasters must have been responsible for casting and lifting the Hogwarts protections and therefore all of them must be notably accomplished in these areas of magic vastly overextends the little information we have. --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:35, November 4, 2018 (UTC)